-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheism vs Theism
- Thread starter Falvlun
- Start date
Creator and creation are the same from the ultimate level. Therefore my existence is confirmation of the Creator. It need not be called G-d, nor Creator, nor have a personality, but it is not atheism, because I do not depend on anything or anyone to confirm my existence neither is it agnostic or probable, because I have no doubts.
That certainly is a rational way of explaining a conviction that God exists.
Are you saying that "all is God" or are you saying that "God is all"? Or neither?
It depends on degree of conviction and the way we come to understand this.
I think it can be categorised, for mental clarity into three groups, with people crossing the borders also:
1) Creator and creation are not the same. "I am in no way related to God, I am not God". Nothing is God except God. (Or God does not exist)
2) Creator and creation are linked and creation depends on creator. "I am a part of the creation and not seperate from it, but I am not sure about being God or not" i.e. All is God but I am not convinced due to some reasons.
3) Creator and creation are the same. "I am divine, all is God and God is all without any difference" I.e. God is all because I cease to be when I consider Him.
Last edited:
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
I'm a theist because it feels right.
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
I third Onkarah on this one.
Satans_Serrated_Edge
Deicidal
I think it is perfectly reasonable to take the 'hard' atheist stance. There is exactly as much evidence to support the idea of a god as there is to support the idea of invisible tendon-gnomes controlling all my limbs. Both have a very small amount of explanatory power, yet in both cases it is trumped by the much more robust explanatory power of science. Saying there is no god is no different than saying there is no actual golem from lord of the rings, or no incredible hulk that destroys buildings when he gets angry. I am quite comfortable in those claims, as most theists would be. The case for 'god' is nothing more than special pleading.
No quantifiable differences, no different.
No quantifiable differences, no different.
JMorris
Democratic Socialist
blasphemy:tsk:
Jeremiah
Well-Known Member
Atheist, because I believe in absolute death. The god thing is just a byproduct, my original philosophy did not actually include gods, it just dismissed them as a relevant factor; in part because gods are beyond human knowledge. I concluded that it was most probable that I would die and that, even if somewhere something like a god existed, I however was still on my own.
Last edited:
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
I agree, so long as one acknowledges that it's a position based on faith. While there's no hard evidence (by which I mean scientifically testable) for God's existence, there is evidence nonetheless. Mystical experiences, mostly. And there is no evidence for no God. The hard atheist has just as much faith as the average believer.
The_Evelyonian
Old-School Member
How does it take faith to not believe in something?
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
The hard atheist doesn't just not believe. He believes there is no God. A completely unevidenced belief is a form of faith, is it not?
Jeremiah
Well-Known Member
The_Evelyonian
Old-School Member
Seems to be more a problem of semantics than anything else. To say that it requires faith to deny the existence of god, to me, makes no sense. You may as well say it takes faith to deny the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Celestial Teapot, or the Invisible Unicorn.
Do you believe it requires faith to deny the existence of those three?
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
As I said, hard atheism is not mere denial. It's assertion of non-existence.
I'm not saying it takes faith to deny a position, but to assert one.
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
The_Evelyonian
Old-School Member
Again, semantics. If I say, "There is no god." is that not the same as saying, "I deny the existence of god."? Where does denial end and assertion begin?
Jeremiah
Well-Known Member
If you don't mind my joining in
It takes faith to believe in reality
"It takes faith to believe in reality"
It does not take "faith" to believe in reality, it takes reason and logic to do that. Faith is suppose to extend us beyond reason and logic.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Semantics on your part, maybe. The weak/ soft atheist says "I don't believe in God." No faith required. The strong/ hard atheist says "I believe there is no God." Faith. Either one might be characterized as denial, but only the latter requires faith.
Is there a reason you're playing semantic games with such a straightforward argument?